MPTrooper wrote:I am not here to labal athiest as amoral. I stated I didn't understand the mindset of an Atheist, not that I think they are worthless or whatever.

I was simply responding to KidDirtys responce that he feels sorry for us religious types. I feel sorry for the non religious types.

In any case I'll keep this as my last post here. Religious debates and the like belong in different thread.

Please understand I meant no offense and I'm sorry if I was.

I know you do not, but the reason for living is often interlinked with morality.
you stated specifically 'I feel sorry for an Atheist because I honestly have no idea what they live for' and my answers would generally fall into 'moral absoultisim' arguements (e.g. least suffering for the least number of people) for life to continue (rather than the flipent 'to have lots of sex and successful offspring'). I also attempt to differetiate the absolute (eternal) time scale from the old 2 generation timescale, i.e. I want my grandkids to have a better world than I recieved which superseeds the 'we are all doomed, but when we reach (mystic happy place) we will be ok' (from the first, cosmic, scale).
In previous times I have explained my three guiding principles, as an Atheist, to Religous types they correctly identify they force a set of morals on me but then question how I can have morals without some guiding hand which, as you said, is blatently false. I consider this backwards reasoning, they imply Morals+mystic goals=action, whereas I believe goal=action+moral and I was just attempting to premept that line of 'reasoning'

You say you feel sorry for us as you have no concept of what we live for, just as an Atheist feels sorry for those who cling to an idea in direct conflict with all evidence. This not only applies to religion (more later) but also alternate 'medicine' (woo) and disproven scientifc ideas.
On religion, I truely pitty those who claim that a belief system is the ONE TRUE UNCHANGING FAITH*, while failling to understand how it has been modified to fit the 'modern' times and the 'best' available evidence. Classic examples of this are all the Bible tenants that are routinely ignored (e.g. stoning adaulters to death) either for the simple reason the punishment does not fit the 'crime', or simply it is not a crime.

Steven
*yes, I know shouting in bad but people get all excided about the one true fauth, and heck this is the ONE true faith, which varies from all the others that worship the same God/s but do such things as accept homosexuals cos we are the TRUE faith (now where is that male prostitute?).

I have just recently openly declared my atheism to close friends and family... I spent a long time having these feelings but never really thought deeper into them. Now that I have officially rejected the idea that there is some all-powerful being out there judging everyone I have spent time reading and researching the topic of religion, and lack of.

The argument that says people get their morals from religion or from a belief in a God is a very weak one that most people should be disabused of fairly easily, after a little explaining.

For starters I would simply ask this: "If you found out today that one-hundred percent, absolutely, positivly there is no God, would you go out tomorrow and kill your neighbor?" No. "Why Not?" Most people know that they wouldn't change the way they live their life. Sure they would stop spending time in churches, the real devotees may loosen up a little, but pretty much everyone would continue living their lives just as they had been.

Some people make the argument "Then what is the purpose?" I like the way Richard Dawkins says it in his book The God Delusion:

"Watson retorted: 'Well I don't think we're for anything. We're just products of evolution. You can say "Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose." But I'm anticipating having a good lunch.' We did have a good lunch, too."

In other words: Why must someone else have some plan for you? Isn't it enough that you're here? Make the most of it!